Maybe this is just an accessable 'poster boy' for the ongoing impacts we are now beginning to see?
Empty reservoirs don't stand up against raging mud floes on the 6 O'clock News!
We think that many out there are willfully ignorant of the changes the past 3 decades have brought to the Arctic Ocean ( and its ice cover) but ask most folk about the impacts of melting permafrost and all you'll find is blank stares.
Maybe, But if it is portrayed as catastrophic then people look at the effects and see no buildings affected a few trees knocked down but that sort of thing has often happened with landslides occurring from time to time, what do they think? Doesn't it just make people think those crazy tree hugging environmentalists are always crying wolf making things out to be catastrophic and therefore they shouldn't be believed?
I am not saying this shouldn't be publicised, but if it is to be publicised to general public (rather than just locals and anyone travelling in area) I think 'catastrophic' description should be clearly explained. For websites aimed at locals and anyone travelling in nearby area then 'catastrophic' seems a useful term to indicate event will be sudden and without warning so no time to get out of the way.
Wilfully ignorant won't believe, believers already believe. Therefore in considering what to publicise, consider what innocently sceptical will think and aim at those innocently sceptical blank stares.